If Our Troops Fight, Support Them Fully

Spokane is a military town and rallied in a wonderful way behind families left behind during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. If U.S. forces bomb Iraq this year, our community once again might be called upon to line up behind Fairchild’s tanker crews.

As we have done before, so we should do again. Whatever public opinion might say about the commander in chief or the mission he assigns, never again should Americans in combat sense anything less than firm support from the folks at home. One Vietnam was enough.

The political controversies of war ought to be separate from the duty to support U.S. military personnel and their families.

Yet presidential leadership can make it easy, or not so easy, for Americans to support people in uniform.

During the 1991 war, President Bush won strong support for his policy from Americans and from U.S. allies. He was assisted in this endeavor by his own credibility in foreign policy and by Saddam Hussein’s foolish invasion of Kuwait.

President Clinton lacks some of Bush’s credibility, although he’s popular in opinion polls. Iraq, this time, hasn’t invaded anyone. And Clinton has not assembled an overwhelming coalition of allies.

But the attitudes of other nations should reflect on them, not on Clinton. Russia, China and France have appeared more interested in lucrative trade with Iraq than in stopping the spread of germ, chemical and nuclear warfare capability. Iraq’s Arab neighbors seem content to count the gold from their oil industry while the United States shoulders the risk and cost of Mideast security. How disgusting.

Furthermore, Clinton may indeed have a good case for military action. Saddam does not respect diplomacy, except as a ploy to buy time while he makes more weapons. Saddam has shown his willingness to use his weapons, even at terrible cost to his own country. Iraq has continued to develop hellish weapons that cannot be tolerated in hands like Saddam’s.

The task that remains for Clinton is to define, precisely, a set of attainable goals for military engagement. His goals must not set the stage for open-ended, widening conflict that may not be sustainable.

The most reasonable objective is the destruction of the objectionable military capability - provided U.S. intelligence knows where the targets are. Once destroyed, these targets might again be rebuilt. If so, they might have to be destroyed again. Some day, Iraq may acquire a leader whose behavior does not create a need for war. Until that day arrives, the U.S. military has a job to do.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board